the problem with this article I think is that it really describes the fall of the middle - which is going on in more than just the camera world. The middle class is shrinking, middle markets are shrinking --- so it makes sense, the P&S market is also shrinking...mirrorless needs to find an identity to survive - mirrorless is currently its own niche though. the way I see it there are 2 schools of thought with mirrorless:

One being that this will be the superior tech for all forms of photography - the other:

Mirrorless will sneak in and grab the middle because of it's smaller size.

I do believe that option 2 is really bound to fail because as every article I read says - Connectivity trumps IQ with the mass market. Pro's and enthusiasts will be on the other side. Pros and enthusiasts also won't be as ready to ditch their investment in glass. So for mirrorless to take hold it almost has to follow a similar model to sony's FF mirrorless bodies ---with the exception being that they REALLY need to find a way to create a native EF mount for lenses --- if all the amazing glass we have now available --- repeat --- EF mount!!!!... no silly adaptors --- Of course there's issues with EVF and battery drain and other stuff to deal with ---but --- for most working pros and invested enthusiasts having to ditch all your old lenses for new mirrorless ones, while also going through the hoops with those new lenses (IE redesigning optics and findingt he right combinations that make the most sense). Nope, that will make mirrorless DOA if you ask me. Sony was on the right track because with tat adaptor you can use both canon and nikon lenses ---canon and nikon have to find a way though to make one that uses their own already present lenses. If they can do that, then the game is on. If Canikon doesn't jump on board though, then it's DOA because pro's and enthusiasts are too invested in these systems ---- and with a failing market, where is all that R&D money to redesign everything coming from?

I've said this many times before about other products: if they do not take off in the USA, they are bound to fail. The mirrorless segment has been struggling to grab a foothold in the US market for years, so it's totally doomed. Eventually, the only manufacturer of the niche mirrorless market may just be Sony.

Well, it would be possible for mirrorless cameras to take off even with the current (EF-M) lens mount, but it would require being able to get a much, much wider range of EF-M lenses than the three (at last count) that are currently available. IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.

Of course, if Canon really wants EF-M cameras to be more popular, there's one easy way: offer lens crossgrades, in which they take an existing EF or EF-S lens and change the mount to a solidly built EF-M mount so that it doesn't require an adapter, and also sell the EF-M variants as an additional SKU. (Ideally, they should also provide a crossgrade service, at least for the non-EF-S lenses, to turn those EF-M variants back into EF lenses for when EF-M users decide to upgrade to full-frame cameras.)

Such a crossgrade service would require almost zero additional engineering (it would just require replacing a few body pieces) and would jump-start the EF-M platform to some degree, as current EF-S camera users would see a viable upgrade path for their existing gear. Such a scheme might eventually allow EF-M to cannibalize the EF-S camera body market.

Mirrorless Camera sales have been tanking all year, and there will be manufacturers who get absorbed into other companies. The issue is the number of new lens systems that require a big investment, as well as the realization that the tiny camera body still requires big lenses. Buyers just do not want to invest in a tiny body with large and expensive lenses.

I'd buy a Mirrorless version of a FF body that took EF lenses, just to avoid the mirror and its issues. Unfortunately, FF autofocus is still not up to the high standard set by DSLR's. If the 70D were wildly successful, a FF Mirrorless from Canon would be more likely.

Nonsense - it would be too labor intensive to modify the lenses and would probably cost more than buying the correct mount. If Canon really wants to "get behind the M" it would have to considerably lower the cost - nowbeing done by fire sales of current inventory - or significantly improve the functionality and capabilities. Mirrorless systems vendors all have dual quality level lenses as a cost containment strategy - except maybe Samsung which seems all "consumer" grade and Leica which hardly rates consideration at its astronomical price levels - which degrade the entire systems brand as a serious photographic tool. The novelty factor has had time to wear thin and the general economic malaise has curtailed discretionary spending which might go towards a "new toy".

Mirrorless world domination is for certain. Resistance is futile. Connected, Excellent Mirrorless cameras very soon will offer better functionality than any mirror-slapper at significantly lower cost (= at somewhat lower prices for buyers and considerably higher margins for makers).

The conversion is just taking a bit longer, because makers wanted to dump their old tech stuff without connectivity (wifi, 4g) onto the markets first and have refused - until the very receent sony a7/r - to offer really worthehile mirrorless camera systems for enthusiasts use. Since virtually every picture taker who values iq has one or more perfectly functional dslrs already, it takes much more to win them over than half-assed consumer crap like an eos-m, a sony nex or a samsung nx with painfully limited photographic and ergonomic functionality.

market saturation + economic crisis + very conservative customer base = difficult environment for "entry level" new technology. This will change rapidly as soon asmore highly specced MILC cameras and systems will be available at very attractive pricepoints.

999 usd/€ for a fully capable ff body (say with 70d level of performance and nikon d7100 sensor quality and full connectivity wifi+4g+social networks + professional networks) will come. And usd/€ 1999 hi res ff milc will not only be available from sony (a7r) but with 5d IV functionality (af, 30+mp sensor, performance and 8 fps) from canon. The more people hild off buying either mirror-slappers or low-spec half-assed milcs like eos-m, the sooner we will get really good milc systems. Of course with a full range of smaller and better native, short-flange lenses. And of course with fully functional easy adapters for our existing glass if we dont mind its size or if some lenses (super-teles) cannot be made significantly smaller for the time being until new technology like DO or whatever also take care of that. :-)

IMO, as long as most EF-M camera users have to use the adapter with full-size lenses (along with the corresponding IQ loss), I would expect the EF-M cameras to continue to be largely stillborn except as cheap backup bodies.

Just how bad is the EF-EOS M adapter? There's zero optics in it, the electrical contacts work perfectly as far as I know, and I'm guessing that as a relatively expensive adapter made by a good brand, the alignment between the two mounts is pretty good.

Surely a lens such as the EF-S 55-250 STM would perform just as well on the EOS M as it does on an identically sensored rebel?

I've said this many times before about other products: if they do not take off in the USA, they are bound to fail. The mirrorless segment has been struggling to grab a foothold in the US market for years, so it's totally doomed.

Currently "mirrorless" might be getting a bad name, but that's a marketing failure as its introduced in the low end market and fails to deliver almost all of the potential advantages when coupled with clever software and a fast processor.

Of course any self-respecting dslr shooter will shy away from a cheap evf and horrible af, but this will change once you've got focus peaking in the vf which will make mirrorless sell like hotcakes to the "f1.2 thin dof" portrait crowd.

Nonsense - it would be too labor intensive to modify the lenses and would probably cost more than buying the correct mount.

Assuming that was in response to me, you're missing my whole point. Canon has only three lenses in the correct mount: an 11–22mm zoom, an 18–55mm zoom, and a 22mm prime. That's it. So you can't buy long lenses in the correct mount for mirrorless Canon cameras, and long lenses are where the weight of the lens causes the most sagging, and thus where I'd expect the maximum amount of IQ loss from the adapter.

It also doesn't help that the focus ranges they offer in EF-M are harder to work with than what is available in the EF-S and EF worlds, either. There's nothing with as long a range as the 15–85 (crop) or 24–105 (FF), and there's nothing as wide as the 10–22, period. Worse, the primary zoom lens is equivalent to about 29–88, and most people would probably find that to not be wide enough, resulting in a much higher rate of lens changes compared with EF or EF-S, where 24/15 is the starting point for most of the popular zooms.

BTW, the effort to convert a lens should be pretty negligible. For lighter lenses, they could probably do it just by making their existing adapter slightly longer, removing the metal lens mount (four screws, typically) and putting the modified adapter in its place. For heavier lenses, they would probably need to replace the top part of the body with a larger piece of metal in order to prevent excessive sagging. However, IIRC, that enclosure piece is usually easy to remove without fully disassembling the lens, making this also a trivial modification.

For the electrical connections, they could either clip the contact block from the current adapter tube to the contact block on the lens or they could build a blank circuit board to put in place of the existing lens board, with the appropriate connectors for the various ribbon cables on one side and extension ribbon cables on the other side to connect up to the lens's original circuit board, then mount the original circuit board at the top of the extension piece, though that would require slightly different versions of the mount adapter, depending on where the circuit board's screw holes are, so that would be a more appropriate choice only for the longer lenses, where you have to build a custom body piece anyway.

Either way, we're talking about maybe an afternoon's worth of engineering effort per lens, and about a 5 minute modification with fairly inexpensive-to-manufacture parts. Heck, a third party could even do this; it's that straightforward.

Just how bad is the EF-EOS M adapter? There's zero optics in it, the electrical contacts work perfectly as far as I know, and I'm guessing that as a relatively expensive adapter made by a good brand, the alignment between the two mounts is pretty good.

The problem is that every extra lens mount adds to the alignment inaccuracy—two mounts are quite obviously twice as bad as one. And an alignment error of as little as a tenth the width of a human hair can cause a visible difference in focusing accuracy from one side of the frame to another, particularly if you're using a fast lens.

So you can't buy long lenses in the correct mount for mirrorless Canon cameras, and long lenses are where the weight of the lens causes the most sagging, and thus the maximum amount of IQ loss from the adapter.

Sagging? I don't understand. Are you saying that if you mounted, for example, a 70-200/2.8L IS II or a 100-400L via the adapter onto an EOS M, that you'd hold the body in both hands when shooting? That seems like a pretty unlikely thing, for most people. I would think most of us would support the lens by the lens, meaning it wouldn't matter if the lens was a 70-200, 85L, or a 600/4, the weight on the adapter would be the same - the weight of the EOS M. The only time I can see it making a difference is with a short but heavy lens lacking a tripod collar (85L, for example) when using it on a tripod, meaning you'd need to use the adapter's tripod foot.

I'm curious - has the effect this 'sagging' on IQ been documented somewhere, and if so, can you provide a link? I've used the M + adapter + 85L II on a tripod, mounted via the adapter's foot, and I didn't notice anything manifestly obvious.